An Australian insurance company recently employed keystroke technology to monitor an employee’s performance while he was working from home. On analysis, the tech revealed inefficiencies in the employee’s work habits based on his typing patterns, ultimately leading to the employee’s termination. The data disclosed that the employee failed to meet her scheduled hours on 44 days, was consistently late on 47 days, finished early on 29 days, and on specific days there were no strokes at all! It also revealed that she did no work for four days during this period, and when she did log in her keystroke activity was extremely low.
Keystroke technology, commonly known as keystroke logging or keyloggers, involves recording every keystroke made on a computer keyboard. This practice captures details such as key names, typing patterns and timing of keystrokes. The technology is increasingly being applied to monitor employee productivity, but the question that arises here is whether it will become a more prominent feature in the future of remote work. Do organisations really need it?
“The tool appears to be valuable, particularly in the post-COVID era, for monitoring specific employees and their productivity,” believes Kamlesh Dangi, group head-HR, InCred.
“The technology can potentially complement rather than replace existing evaluation methods. For instance, it can work in conjunction with feedback from supervisors and be considered an additional data point, rather than the sole basis for analysis.”
Kamlesh Dangi, group head-HR, InCred
Sunil Singh, senior HR leader also believes such technology becomes imperative for organisations that are expanding continuously. It becomes increasingly challenging to forecast the overall productivity of the organisation at this stage, as everyone in the organisation bears responsibility towards stock exchanges, stakeholders and the board, necessitating the provision of productivity projections on a monthly basis.
“With the rise of AI, monitoring capabilities have expanded significantly, providing precise insights into the work being done. This trend is expected to continue in organisations seeking to meet their obligations to their board and shareholders, who demand accurate predictions regarding revenue and profits, all of which ultimately depend on employee performance,” asserts Singh.
While the technology keeps a check on productivity, it doesn’t let the employees know that they’re being monitored. With this discreet feature, sometimes the tool may seem too intrusive. However, as long as the deployment is transparent and people view it as a measure aimed at improving overall performance, rather than as a breach of trust, it can be implemented effectively.
“With the rise of AI, monitoring capabilities have expanded significantly, providing precise insights into the work being done. This trend is expected to continue in organisations seeking to meet their obligations to their board and shareholders, who demand accurate predictions regarding revenue and profits, all of which ultimately depend on employee performance.”
Sunil Singh, senior HR leader
Giving an example, Singh explains that many apps such as Google, track the data — containing details pertaining to people’s dining preferences, social activities and general behaviour — which sometimes even gets sold to various organisations. Now, if someone were to misuse this information, the blame doesn’t necessarily fall on the technology, because these apps, such as Google, themselves use this data to provide useful reminders and suggestions. They alert people about an upcoming flight and even offer to book a cab.
“Historically, humans have always sought ways to improve efficiency, speed up tasks and minimise manual intervention. These are the primary driving forces behind technological advancements. Therefore, the possibility of misuse shouldn’t necessarily make us reject the technology outright,” he adds.
Admitting that ”the introduction of new initiatives, tools and even technologies is a common practice at the workplace now,” Dangi explains, “If I had to implement this within my organisation, especially if we largely operate on a work-from-home model and are encountering productivity challenges due to some employees misusing the privilege, I would begin by openly communicating with everyone. I would explain that we intend to maintain the work-from-home option but are addressing the issue of identifying unproductive individuals by deploying this technology.”
Organisations differ in the broader vision and mindset with which they implement such tools. If the organisation’s vision and mindset align with a culture of control, it may inadvertently create an environment that feels like a prison for its employees. On the other hand, if the organisation prioritises creating a positive workplace where employees can work efficiently and happily, with the technology helping them accomplish tasks faster and more effectively, then it becomes a valuable tool.
“It’s crucial to approach this technology with a nuanced perspective, tailoring its use to specific job contexts. While it may be informative for certain roles, for others, it can lead to inaccurate interpretations and analyses.”
Tanaya Mishra, VP-HR, Endo International
Furthermore, there are several roles where this technology can prove to be a lot more beneficial. Several roles such as at the shop floor, in operations, across manufacturing facilities, or sales, where quantifiable metrics such as meetings, calls, proposals and follow-ups are crucial, the technology can yield immediate and direct results.
Singh points out, “Even in managerial roles, which are often considered subjective, this technology can provide substantial benefits. With its help, individuals in such roles can better plan their work based on historical data, tracking what strategies have yielded quicker results compared to those that haven’t.”
When it comes to roles that are predominantly input driven, keystroke monitoring can offer valuable insights. “The technology can potentially complement rather than replace existing evaluation methods. For instance, it can work in conjunction with feedback from supervisors and be considered an additional data point, rather than the sole basis for analysis,” opines Dangi.
With such positives, there are certain roles or jobs that are not even suitable for keystroke monitoring.
In a contrasting point of view, Tanaya Mishra, VP-HR, Endo International, points out, “Productivity can be quite challenging to gauge, and its evaluation depends on the context. For instance, when dealing with qualitative aspects, such as research and development — say someone working on a molecule until it succeeds— quantifying productivity becomes elusive. In such cases, it’s hard to determine productivity.”
Dangi also adds to this list jobs that involve voice conversations, such as customer service or even certain sales roles. In these roles, evaluating productivity through keystrokes may yield incorrect assessments.
Hence, “It’s crucial to approach this technology with a nuanced perspective, tailoring its use to specific job contexts. While it may be informative for certain roles, for others, it can lead to inaccurate interpretations and analyses,” cautions Mishra.
While technologies are introduced to ease out challenges such as maintaining productivity, they sometimes raise ethical concerns as well, especially when close monitoring is involved. However, all leaders believe if organisations communicate the same to their employees and be upfront about adopting the tech, with clear intentions and objectives, it will not be an issue.
Sharing an example, Dang conveys, “While one can argue about ethics and personal space, it’s understood that an office environment is subject to monitoring through CCTV cameras, and individuals are aware of this. Those who are uncomfortable with it have the choice to not enter into a contract.”
The perspective on privacy has also evolved over the years. People often download numerous apps on their phones, blindly granting permissions without reading them thoroughly. Hence, when it comes to workplace monitoring, it is essential to recognise that both sides need to exercise care in this regard.
“From an ethical standpoint, it’s important to ensure that such technology is not misused. Organisations bear the responsibility of implementing systems to prevent data breaches and misuse. Employees also share the burden of being mindful of their actions on office devices, understanding that it’s an irreversible process. Given this day and age, often organisations cannot avoid using such technology. Unless there is a unified stance at the national or union level regarding its usage, organisations will continue to deploy it,” concludes Singh.
